Did anyone know that Virginia Mollenkott, who worked
on the NIV was a lesbian? Did she have any influence on the NIV translation?
Let us look at that for awhile.

A literary critic on the NIV translation was homosexual
author Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. In Episcopal Witness (June 1991, pp. 20-23),
she admits, "My lesbianism has ALWAYS been a part of me ..." To no surprise,
"sodomite" is completely removed from the NIV (Deut. 23:17, 1 Kings 14:24,
15:12, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:7). And of course, in 1 Cor. 6:9, "... effeminate,
nor abusers of themselves with mankind..." is replaced with the non-offensive
"... nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. . ," Notice the NIV in
1 Cor. 6:9 does NOT condemn "homosexuals" or the "act of homosexuality" -
but ONLY "homosexual OFFENDERS"!

In the June 1994 issue of the PBC, we published an article
entitled An NIV/Lesbian Cover-up! It was written by Yvonne S. Waite, the
wife of Dr. D. A. Waite. He is director of The Bible For Today, and is President
of the Dean Burgon Society. This Society defends the Traditional Text and
the KJV. I shall quote from that article.

Dr. D. A. Waite warned years ago of her (Mollenkott)
fondness of women and of her penchant for non-Biblical views in his analysis
of her early work. "Woman Men, & the Bible," which he drafted in 1977,
(BFT #518/$4.00) In fact, he concluded after reading her book that she was
not a "believer." He wrote: "Virginia Ramey Mollenkott might very well be
an apostate who has never been born again, but is only posing as a `sheep'
when in reality she is a `wolf' in `sheep's clothing.'" (pg. 33) Dr. Waite
knew she was a practicing homosexual as far back as 1962-63 when they both
taught at Shelton College in Ringwood, New Jersey--that's when she told her
classes it was all right to lie, a la Tom Sawyer. In fact, Arthur Steele
refused to be president of that college unless this "SOPHIAlator" were kicked
off the staff! Yes, he has a letter, dated November 27, 1978, from Bob Jones,
Jr. (Bob Jones University) saying: "We had a definite problem with her because
she insisted on hobnobbing with a few girls when she was employed as a teacher
here for one year in the fifties.

"The translation committee sends lesbian Mollenkott the
book of Deuteronomy to edit. She comes to Deut. 23:17, which reads, "There
shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons
of Israel." The lesbian suggests that they use the word "sodomite" in their
translation. So, you can't imagine that, well neither can I. So, she sends
it back telling them that "sodomite" should be removed and "temple prostitute"
be substituted. Of course, she has no ulterior motive! If you can believe
that, you might well believe that elephants can fly.

This is listed under "The Lutheran Episcopal Center;
317 17th Ave SE; Minneapolis, MN 55414". Which is "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual,
Transgender Faith Advocates Group". Which is "A campus-based faith organization
that works to enhance the spiritual lives of gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender individuals at the University of Minnesota". If you need more
help read, "Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? by Virginia Mollenkott and Letha
Scanzoni".

NIV committee member still proud to be queer.

MOLLENKOTT A HOMOSEXUAL-Virginia Mollenkott, a "deconstructed"
evangelical, is actually a pro-abortion feminist New Ager (11/1/93 CC), and
"a practicing lesbian who promotes adultery and repudiates the Christian
faith" (11/25 Chr. News). She is quoted as follows in the pro-gay Evangelicals
Concerned's Spring 1997 Record concerning Ellen's recent "coming out": "I
came of age in the 1940s and 1950s, discovering my own sexuality at a time
when only negative information was available to me. I was one of the many
gay teenagers who have attempted suicide, because we cannot fit in - one
of those to whom Ellen dedicated her dual coming-out. When the show ended,
I sat thinking about the parties all over the country. I thought of the many
gay women and men celebrating perhaps the most public affirmation we had
ever received."

After Mark 16:8 the NIV says, "The most reliable early manuscripts and other
ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." ZAP-There goes another 12 verses!
And by the way, that is absolutely untrue! The book, The Last Twelve Verses
of the Gospel of Mark, by Dean Burgon contains over 400 pages of documented
evidence for Mark 16:9-20, that has never been refuted, nor ever will!

After John 7:52, the NIV, reads, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts
and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11" ZAP-There goes another
12 verses!

Matt. 12:47, 21:44, Luke 22:43 and 22:44 are all removed in the footnotes!

That's 45 complete verses the NIV removes from the text or in the footnotes!

JOHN 3:16: The NIV reads, "For God so loved the
world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes
in him shall not perish but have eternal life" Jesus was NOT "the one and
only son" - Adam is called the "son of God" in Luke 3:38, there are "sons
of God" in Job 1:6 and Christians are called "sons of God" in Phil 2:15,
I John 3:2- but Jesus was the "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON"! By removing the critical
word "BEGOTTEN" - The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE! The NIV does the
same in John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:18.

The NIV perverts Mark 1:2,3 into a LIE! The NIV reads
"It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way-a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the
way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written
in Isaiah!"I will send my messenger ahead of
you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1! The King James
correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS, . . ." A better translation!
Easier to read - BY A LIE!

Psalms 119:160 says, "Thy word is TRUE. . ." John 17:17
says, ". . . thy word is TRUTH." Titus 1:2 clearly says, ". . . God that
CANNOT LIE" How could the God of Titus 1:2 be the God of Mark 1:2,3 in the
NIV!? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! For Hebrews 6:18 clearly declares, ". . . it was
IMPOSSIBLE for God to LIE" It is impossible for the LIES in the NIV to be
the words of GOD! Whose words are they? I'll give you a hint - Jesus Christ
calls him "A LIAR, and the father of it" in John 8:44!

The NIV again openly LIES in 2 Samuel 21:19, ".
. . Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite,
who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." What 8-year-old doesn't
know that David killed Goliath?

Romans 1:18-32 describes the "path to perversion" and
verse 25, describes their decline, "Who changed the TRUTH of God into a LIE.
. ."! Not surprisingly, The NIV perverts Romans 1:25 from "CHANGED the truth
of God INTO a lie" to "EXCHANGED the truth of God FOR a lie"!

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood,
we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Ephes. 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood,
the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with
blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

COLOSSIANS 1:14: The KJB reads, "In whom we have redemption
THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:" The NIV reads,
"In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The NIV rips out the
precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD"! Friend, redemption is ONLY "THROUGH HIS
BLOOD". Hebrews 9:22, reads, ". . . without shedding of BLOOD is no remission."
That old song says, "What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF
JESUS!"

I TIMOTHY 3:16: This is the clearest verse in the Bible proclaiming
that Jesus Christ was God. The King James Bible reads, "1 Tim. 3:16 And without
controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in
the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto
the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. And without
controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH.
. ." The King James says, plainly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". The NIV
reads, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV "twists" "GOD" to "HE". "HE appeared
in a body"? So What? Everyone has "appeared in a body"! "He" is a pronoun
that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context!
The statement does NOT make sense! The NIV subtilty (see Genesis 3:1) perverts
I Timothy 3:16 into utter nonsense!

PHILIPPIANS 2:6: The KJB again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus
Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL
WITH GOD" The NIV reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER
EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,". The NIV again subtitly perverts
the deity of Jesus Christ!

Continues with the Birth of Christ

LUKE 2:33: The King James Bible reads, "And JOSEPH and
his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV reads,
"The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about
him." The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Was Joseph Jesus's father? Not if you believe
the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the
Son of God! A subtil, "perversion" of the virgin birth. See also Luke 2:43.

If we look in the NIV, we will never know anything about Lucifer for this
term for Satan does not appear on its pages. The only reference to the name
of the one who led the revolt against God is found in the King James Bible
(KJB) in Isaiah 14:12. The referenced Scripture, and the verses following,
have always been identified with the fall of Satan, and the names Lucifer
and Satan have become synonymous in the English speaking world. The Isaiah
Chapter 14 event is probably the same as the one Jesus described in Luke
10:18 where He said, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."

It is interesting to note the name that the NIV has substituted in the place
of Lucifer as this is doctrinal and has far reaching effects on the credibility
and reliability of the NIV as a Christian Bible. Looking at the Scripture
below you will see the morning star is identified as the one who fell from
heaven. Who is this morning star? I have always been led to believe that
this was Jesus, but as you can see, the NIV has a totally different viewpoint.
A brief look at the referenced Scripture in both the NIV and KJB will clearly
verify the doctrinal differences between the two.

New International Version

Isaiah 14:12-15 (NIV) " How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star,
son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid
low the nations! You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will
raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount
of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend
above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." But
you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.

King James Bible

Isaiah 14:12-15 (KJB) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of
the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I
will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount
of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights
of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down
to hell, to the sides of the pit."

In defining just who this morning star is, we need to look at several references
in both the NIV and the KJB where these terms are used together.

New International Version

2 Pet 1:19 (NIV)

"And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do
well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until
the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts."

Rev 2:28 (NIV)

"I will also give him the morning star."

Rev 22:16 (NIV)

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches.
I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

King James Bible

Rev 2:28 (KJB)

"And I will give him the morning star."

Rev 22:16 (KJB)

"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.
I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

In Revelation 22:16 both the NIV and the KJB identify the morning star as
being Jesus and all the other noted references allude to the same concept.
If a person is to accept the NIV as the Word of God, then he or she must
also accept that it was Jesus who was cast from heaven in the event described
in Isaiah 14:12. This really does not make sense because the Bible clearly
teaches that Jesus voluntarily left heaven to provide a way of salvation
for mankind, and it nowhere implies that He defied God and was cast out.
The NIV really strikes out on this one.

According to I Corinthians 6:9 in the NIV if a person offends a homosexual,
he or she will not enter the kingdom of God. In this version, the homosexual
offender is placed in the same category as adulterers, idolaters, the greedy,
drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers. Keep in mind this is not the sin of
homosexuality as described in the KJB, but is specified as being those who
offend homosexuals.

Perhaps this is made clearer by Webster's Dictionary definition of offend
which means to strike against or to cause dislike, anger, or vexation. Offender
is the noun presentation of the verb offend. An offender then is one who
offends. It denotes action on the part of a person. In the case of the NIV,
it is one who offends a homosexual.

New International Version

1 COR 6:9-10 (NIV)

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do
not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers
nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy
nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Here you see a clear example of a version of the Bible being worded to
accommodate a particular group of people, homosexuals. Their kind of sexual
behavior used to be called perversion, but in today's world it is called
a lifestyle. This is the class of people that occupied Sodom and Gomorrah.
The KJB calls them Sodomites, a term that used to mean homosexuals in our
society but has lately fallen prey to the cry to legitimize same sex
relationships. The NIV calls them temple prostitutes, a description which
in no way implies homosexual behavior.

God was not at all reluctant to offend the homosexuals when He destroyed
Sodom and Gomorrah, and I seriously doubt that He has changed His mind to
be in line with today's new morality. However the NIV, the Bible that offends
no one except maybe God, has no reference to Sodomites in its pages and instead
of an admonition against this grievous sin, it places a stern warning to
those who might call attention to the fact that homosexuality is still contrary
to Christian principles.

All students of the Bible are familiar with the story of the three Hebrew
men who were cast into the fiery furnace as related in Daniel 3:25. The Bible
tells of their deliverance by a fourth man who was seen walking around in
the fire. This fourth man has always been considered to be Jesus Christ in
an appearance in the Old Testament; however the NIV speaks of this person
as being a son of the gods which in no way describes Jesus Christ, the Son
of the living God.

For those who advocate the NIV, I suppose this means that there are many
gods who have many sons. This certainly does not agree with the one God concept
held by the prophets and apostles and advocated by Christians down through
the centuries.. Reference to the Scripture will show that there are major
differences between the NIV and the KJB in this area.

New International Version

Dan 3:25 (NIV)

5 He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and
unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."

King James Bible

Dan 3:25 (KJB)

5 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of
the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son
of God.

The NIV presentation of Daniel 3:25 supports a concept of many gods who have
many sons, and it takes away a Scriptural reference to Jesus Christ in the
Old Testament which is critical to understanding His preeminence and immortal
existence. This is a far cry from the Bible of the past that presented the
Son of God as the deliverer in the fiery furnace. God must really feel let
down when the Christian churches accept this perversion as holy and reject
the Bible that has been preserved for the saints.

The NIV deletes part of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:9-13. On the surface
this doesn't seem important, but if we look closely at the words which are
deleted, it will be apparent that the NIV is following its predisposition
to lessen the supremacy of God.

New International Version

Matt 6:9-13 (NIV)

9 This, then, is how you should pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your
name,

10 your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give
us today our daily bread.

12 Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'

King James Bible

Matt 6:9-13 (KJB)

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed
be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in
heaven.

11 Give us this day our daily bread.

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is
the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Two important points must be recognized:

We have not forgiven our debtors as a one time occurrence, it must be ongoing.
We do not get forgiveness from God only once (even though salvation comes
only once), but we continue to sin and must come back to God time and again
to get forgiveness, and

It is important that we understand that we need to be delivered from the
evil one (Satan) and all other kinds of evilness. I suspect that most of
us must be delivered from our own evilness.

The last part of the prayer, which is left out of the NIV, has a significant
message to the Christian, for it indicates that we recognize that God has
total control over all things and can order all things. He has the power
and the might, and we are nothing but dust, and we need to always recognize
exactly who God is and His relationship to us. God is worthy of all honor.
That is why we need to recognize that He is the glory, for He alone is worthy
because of His goodness, mercy, and longsuffering, and He alone can give
us atonement of our sins.

It is to be a member of God's kingdom that we seek by accepting Jesus Christ
as our personal Savior. This can only come from God. When the Lord's Prayer
is mutilated and these important words are left out, it changes the whole
demeanor of what Jesus said. After all, this is the Lord's prayer.

Fornication, as used in the KJB, was replaced with sexual immorality, marital
unfaithfulness, prostitution or dropped completely in the NIV. Nelson's
Dictionary defines fornication as follows:

FORNICATION

[for nih KAY shun]-- sexual relationships outside the bonds of marriage.
The technical distinction between fornication and ADULTERY is that adultery
involves married persons while fornication involves those who are unmarried.
But the New Testament often uses the term in a general sense for any unchastity.
Of the seven lists of sins found in the writings of the apostle Paul, the
word fornication is found in five of them and is first on the list each time
(1 Cor. 5:11; Col. 3:5). In the Book of Revelation, fornication is symbolic
of how idolatry and pagan religion defiles true worship of God (Rev. 14:8;
17:4).

While all the substitutes for fornication have important implications, the
one concerning sexual immorality is the most misleading and does more to
reveal the covert intentions behind the NIV than all the others. What is
sexual immorality? The dictionary does not give the definition of these two
words together, so they must be defined individually. Websters New Collegiate
Dictionary gives the following definitions.

SEXUAL

1. of, relating to, or associated with sex or the sexes. 2. Having or involving
sex. (Sex, in the sense of sexuality, has to do with sexual intercourse.)

IMMORALITY

1. The act or state of being immoral. 2. An immoral act or practice. (Immoral
means conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles.)

Sexual immorality then is totally identified with sexual conduct as identified
by a specific society. If a society decides that sexual intercourse outside
of marriage is acceptable, it is not against the Word of God when the teachings
of the NIV are followed. However, fornication is a more explicit term which
forbids sexual intercourse outside of marriage and has nothing to do with
what society wants, but this term clearly defines what God demands.

It appears that fornication was dropped from the NIV to make it acceptable
to any society in the world regardless of its sexual practice. Plural marriages,
or concubines can easily be explained away as not being immoral because the
society accepts them. In America today there are a great number of men and
women who are living together (both homosexuals and heterosexuals) outside
of marriage without the slightest conviction that what they are doing is
wrong, and our society as a whole accepts this as normal.

According to the dictionary definition of sexual immorality, and the way
the NIV applies this to sexual acts, it must be all right. One example to
contrast the difference between the NIV and the KJB will make this clear.

New International Version

1 Cor 6:9-10 (NIV)

9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do
not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers
nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

Fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God regardless of how the NIV
reads, or who believes it. God is clear on sexual sins and He doesn't make
any exceptions for societies or their learned scholars; marriage legitimizes
the only admissible intimate relationship between man and woman, and the
acceptance of any sin by any society will never make it right in the eyes
of God.

The NIV gives two accounts of Goliath being killed. In one David does the
task; in the other, Elhanan does it. Both accounts can't be right.

New International Version

1 Sam 17:51 (NIV)

51 David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and
drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with
the sword. When the Philistines saw that their hero was dead, they turned
and ran.

2 Sam 21:19 (NIV)

19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim
the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft
like a weaver's rod.

1 Chr 20:5 (NIV)

5 In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi
the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's
rod.

King James Bible

1 Sam 17:51 (KJB)

51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword,
and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head
therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

2 Sam 21:19 (KJB)

19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan
the son of Ja'are-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the
Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

1 Chr 20:5 (KJB)

5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair
slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like
a weaver's beam.

There is clearly an inconsistency in the NIV. In one place it says David
killed Goliath, in another it says Elhanan killed him, and still in another
it says that Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath. I would say that this
is definitely a contradiction. A disagreement is not a good thing for a Bible;
especially since God is not supposed to make mistakes.

It seems that the NIV is intended to be the Bible for all people and all
beliefs for it reflects practically any doctrine you may be searching for
somewhere within its pages. It appears that in many places it has been
deliberately changed to support Roman Catholic church traditions such as
the perpetual virginity of Mary and the Roman Catholic priesthood whether
the text calls for it or not. These subtle (Do you remember that word from
Genesis 3:1?) changes totally disagree with the doctrines of the reformation
faith and bring about conflicting statements within the NIV itself. A few
of these are given below to illustrate the point.

Romans 15:16 has been changed to make the proclaiming of the Gospel a priestly
duty instead of keeping the responsibility among all ministers of Jesus Christ.

New International Version

Rom 15:16 (NIV)

16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty
of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering
acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. King James Bible

Rom 15:16 (KJB)

16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering
the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable,
being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Hebrews 10:12 has been changed to make it more of a priestly duty to offer
the sacrifice for sins.

New International Version

Heb 10:12 (NIV)

12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins,
he sat down at the right hand of God.

King James Bible

Heb 10:12 (KJB)

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat
down on the right hand of God;

In Matthew 12:4, the shewbread has been changed to consecrated bread to
correspond with the Roman Catholic wafer used in their mass.

New International Version

Matt 12:4 (NIV)

4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated
bread-- which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.

King James Bible

Matt 12:4 (KJB)

4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which
was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but
only for the priests?

New International Version

Mark 2:26 (NIV)

26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and
ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he
also gave some to his companions."

King James Bible

Mark 2:26 (KJB)

26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest,
and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests,
and gave also to them which were with him?

New International Version

Luke 6:4 (NIV)

4 He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what
is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

King James Bible

Luke 6:4 (KJB)

4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread,
and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but
for the priests alone?

Notice in Hebrew 1:3 that it has been changed to reflect that He has provided
for the purification of sins instead of the proper rendering of "He had by
Himself purged our sins." This opens the door for the Roman Catholic practice
of the priests being able to forgive sin.

New International Version

Heb 1:3 (NIV)

3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of
his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided
purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

King James Bible

Heb 1:3 (KJB)

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,
and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself
purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

In Matthew 1:25 the term firstborn is missing. This is to give credence to
the Roman Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

New International Version

Matt 1:25 (NIV)

25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave
him the name Jesus.

King James Bible

Matt 1:25 (KJB)

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he
called his name JESUS.

The NIV's rendering of James 5:16 where it says to confess our sins to each
other is a misrepresentation of God's Word and cannot be justified, for there
is no doctrine anywhere in the Bible where we are to do this. This again
supports the tradition of the Roman Catholic church where the people confess
to the priests.

New International Version

James 5:16 (NIV)

16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that
you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

King James Bible

James 5:16 (KJB)

16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye
may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Notice that the last part of Revelation 2:15 has been omitted. This has to
do with the doctrine of the Nicolaitans which Jesus hates. The reason for
this is because the Roman Catholic church is built upon this doctrine. Nicolaitan
is a term which means "To conquer the laity." It sets up a priesthood which
rules over the people. This is the thing that Jesus hates, but you notice
the NIV presents it in such a way that the doctrines of the Roman Catholic
church won't be in question.

New International Version

Rev 2:15 (NIV)

15 Likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.

King James Bible

Rev 2:15 (KJB)

15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which
thing I hate.

There are many other instances where our traditional doctrines have been
changed or weakened. We must be ever minded that the Roman Catholic church
has not changed throughout the centuries. To embrace a version that confirms
her doctrines abandons the traditional faith of our forefathers and is an
insult to those who have died under Roman Catholic hands defending the true
faith of the Bible.